LIVERYMAN. A liveryman who hires out a horse and driver is a private, and not a common, carrier. He is required only to "exercise the usual care, skill and diligence ordinarily exercised by those engaged in the same pursuit"; Payne v. Halstead, 44 Ill. App. 97; McGregor v. Gill, 114 Tenn. 521, 86 S. W. 318, 108 Am. St. Rep. 919 ; relations between the hirer and the liveryman are those of bailor and bailee ; Gibson v. R. Co., 226 Pa. 198, 75 Atl. 194, 27 L. R. A. (N. S.) 689, 18 Ann. Cas. 535. If the horse was not reasonably safe, and this fact was known to him, or could, by reasonable" care, have been known to him, he is liable in case of an accident; Nisbet v. Wells, 76 S. W. 120, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 511; Conn v. Hunsberger, 224 Pa. 154, 73 Atl. 324, 25 L. R. A. (N. S.) 372, 132 Am. St. Rep. 770, 16 Ann. Cas. 504; Lynch v. Richardson, 163 Mass. 160, 39 N. E. 801, 47 Am. St. Rep. 4.41. If he negligently furnishes an unsuitable horse, it is no de fense that he did not know it was such; Horne v. Meakin, 115 Mass. 326. It is his duty to notify a customer of any vicious propensity of his horse; Ohlweiler v. Loh
mann, 88 Wis. 75, 59 N. W. 678; Windle v. Jordan, 75 Me. 149 ; he must keep safe hors es or fully disclose the character of the horse at the time of hiring him ; Huntoon v. Trum bull, 12 Fed. 844: The "customer must rely upon the liveryman to guard him against the danger of a vicious animal or defective vehicle" ; Conn v. Hunsberger, 224 Pa. 154, 73 Atl. 324, 25 L. R. A. (N. S.) 372, 132 Am. St. Rep. 770, 16 Ann. Cas. 504; so also L. R. 10 C. P. 90.
Where a liveryman hired a vicious horse, with a carriage and driver, to one who took his wife to drive, and the horse became un manageable, and both the husband and wife were upset and injured, held that he was liable to the wife, independent of contract, because it his duty to warn her, and also because, as be kept control of the car riage, he was bound to carry her safely with a proper horse; White and Wife v. Stead man, [1913] 3. K. B. 340.
See LIEN.